...In fact, you can read the origin of species online at http://www.literatur...cies/index.html Darwin sure used a lot of 'could haves' and 'mights' as he discussed his theory. Is that science? I challenge you to take a look at the link, do a 'CTRL F' and search the mights and coulds. That is the strength of science, not its weakness - all scientific explanations are provisional. Science grows with the evidence; it is an assymptotical approach to the truth....

That rather sounds like speculation. And it's still a weakness, but at least Darwin was intellectually honest to indicate his speculation. Science may grow with evidence, Evolution just adopts, when confronted with problematic evidence. The actual paradigm is hardly questioned. That's a mark of ideology (and pseudoscience). What keeps the boat afloat are apriori exclusions of intelligent explanation for what is seen in nature.

That rather sounds like speculation. And it's still a weakness, but at least Darwin was intellectually honest to indicate his speculation. Science may grow with evidence, Evolution just adopts, when confronted with problematic evidence. The actual paradigm is hardly questioned. That's a mark of ideology (and pseudoscience). What keeps the boat afloat are apriori exclusions of intelligent explanation for what is seen in nature.

"Pseudoscience" is sort of a disparaging term so I prefer to use "philosophy" instead. I see that both Creationism and Evolutionism as philosophical beliefs that allow people to make testable scientific hypotheses, and models, as anyone studying both would tell you, they aren't always right. At the very least, there is far far less junk DNA than originally predicted. There is also far less moon dust than originally predicted. There is soft tissue in dinosaur bones that was also not predicted, and organisms (plants, fish, mammals, shellfish, etc) from dinosaur layers that appear to have remained in stasis for "millions of years". As a whole, when there is unexpected evidence, or evidence that is not explicit in our worldviews, then we explain how this makes sense with our philosophy. This is why I don't get when people attempt to pass evolution off as "science", or fact. In order to prove this worldview, we would have to prove the genetic mechanisms are capable of producing this "macro-evolution" and so far, people have only found historical evidence that they claim shows this (which has been disputed at every turn by Creationists). There is no genetic proof, just an argumentum ad futuris that it will eventually be found.

We come from two different worlds. While one group discards the Bible as soon as they hear the idea, or reads through its pages and choosing not to wrap their mind around apparent contradictions, the other (us Christians) see the supposed contradictions, look to the other truth found in the Bible; secular history, historical cities described in the Bible (thought to not exist) which were later unearthed by archaeologists, prophecy (Tyre will be cast into the sea, never to be rebuilt), and the internal consistency from all the authors over the years, as if there was only one author, we choose to keep this book as a beacon of truth, which we do not quite understand, and attempt to reconcile it. Ultimately we will face God, and He will judge us based on what we understood, and we will be responsible if we knowingly rejected Him.

There is often a question posed: how do you know that your ultimate truth is really the truth? It's quite simple; we examine the evidence for all of them and see which makes the most sense. No other religion meets the same qualifications: revelation over generations, fulfilled prophecies, explanation of mans sinful condition, a person claiming to be God, that same person performing miracles in front of hundreds of people one day, and thousands of people the next, being crucified for no crime, rising from the dead when His followers least expected it, and bringing hope to them when they were in despair when a dead leader could not have. Just look at all of the religions and their claims. It's easier than it sounds.

"Pseudoscience" is sort of a disparaging term so I prefer to use "philosophy" instead. I see that both Creationism and Evolutionism as philosophical beliefs that allow people to make testable scientific hypotheses, and models, as anyone studying both would tell you, they aren't always right. At the very least, there is far far less junk DNA than originally predicted. ...

I was using the term pseudoscience with regards to the behavior of not questioning the paradigm even if evidence and logic would urge them to do so. Also excluding certain models/explanations a priori is not a scientific way to go.

Taken, this not only applies to Evolutionists, but can also be a thing Creationists do.

I was using the term pseudoscience with regards to the behavior of not questioning the paradigm even if evidence and logic would urge them to do so. Also excluding certain models/explanations a priori is not a scientific way to go.

Taken, this not only applies to Evolutionists, but can also be a thing Creationists do.

You are quite right. Both sides tend to hold onto ideas and explain scientific evidence in different ways based on their presuppositions. Most people who call it pseudoscience are trying to condemn such actions, but they are condemning something that happens on both sides, by almost everyone who participates.

You are quite right. Both sides tend to hold onto ideas and explain scientific evidence in different ways based on their presuppositions. Most people who call it pseudoscience are trying to condemn such actions, but they are condemning something that happens on both sides, by almost everyone who participates.

That is why I try and sit on the fence, in terms of young / old Earth as well as as to Who actually did the designing

However, (in my mind), its very clear that there is a design in life. Looking at the Biochemistry of the cell and its operation and orchestration with all the other cellular activities there can be no doubt that such a system (made up of systems based on systems), came about with a measure of intelligence.

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I went on travel for my company and I didn't get much time for writing.

Either you are (1) truly ignorant of what creationists have said in this matter or (2) you are deliberately stonewalling your mind to the facts that creationists have brought out in this matter for spiritual reasons that you aren't telling us about.

Nonetheless, the creationist position is clearly detailed and supported by the facts as found in:

I don't understand how that article relates to the apparent contradiction of Dr. Baumgardner's theory of Catastrophic Tectonic activity as the mechanism for the Flood, and the fact that the Flood seemed to sort the animals and plants in the geologic layers in such a way that dinosaurs are never found with humans, rabbits or elephants for example.The article doesn't "detail the creationist position". It only says that the sedimentary rock layers are bent a whole lot and Dr Snelling states that there are no conditions under which rock can bend without breaking, therefore the sediment must have been wet when it bent. Why is it that the overwheming majority of geologists contend that there are conditions that will allow those rocks to bend without breaking? I have seen examples of fossils that have been distorted when the rock they were part of was folded. This paper addresses the deformation of fossils during tectonic stress. http://earth.geology...11.pdf/409.pdf and http://www3.geosc.ps...ces/link013.pdf

If the sediments were still wet from the Flood the animals and plants would not have been fossils and they wouldn't have distorted with the rock.

and in...{video of a creationist presentation}

The presenter on that video pointed out one known fraud by a scientist, and one mistake by another scientist. Then he proceeded to label all paleontologists as frauds and liars. Is the clearly detailed position of creationists to pull quotes of paleontologists out of context, present no evidence to oppose the paleontologists conclusions and then call those scientists liars and frauds?

But you conveniently paid no attention to the details of either example/source I gave you. I will have to go dig for the source on the German tribe that was wiped out...but nonetheless they are not an isolated example. Are you trying to tell me you have NEVER seen human fossil evidence? If so, I don't believe you.

I did not see any real details. There was conjecture by the author that men didn't really live in caves. He based that on some quotes from the Bible that indicate men had technical capability beyond that of people that would live in caves. That seems like poor support for his conjecture. Then he gives examples of discoveries of human or Neanderthal remains. I don't see how this is proof of the world wide Flood. I did not say I have NEVER seen human fossils, I just don't see how the existence of human fossil remains prove the Flood occurred.

I was seeking. What changed me? The evidence. Starting with Asimov's unbelievable claim in "The Wellsprings of Life" that there was a singular case of biogenesis (he called it spontaneous generation!) after all,...in the distant past. His evidence? None. The fact is that no one has ever observed life generating from non-living matter so how did evolution get started in the first place? Then there were the living fossils, none of which reveal any evolutionary change. Then there was the fossil record...after finding out that the best conditions for fossilization was during cataclysmic conditions. Polystrate fossils, out-of-place-artifacts, etc. Need I go further? Evolution is nothing but a sorry joke and atheism is a ship of fools.

I must apologize again for not being clear. I meant: What is it that caused you to believe in God and Christ as your Savior? You were an athiest I presume because you stated that you use to be an evolutionist. Your opinion of evolution and my beliefs are duly noted.

It does if the facts clearly say otherwise and one holds to such a position in spite of the facts.

The creationist movement has not shown that the evidence is clearly pointing to a young earth in which evolution did not occur. I could see that the existence of a designer is possible but that design work was subtle and included the use of evolution.

That is why I try and sit on the fence, in terms of young / old Earth as well as as to Who actually did the designing

However, (in my mind), its very clear that there is a design in life. Looking at the Biochemistry of the cell and its operation and orchestration with all the other cellular activities there can be no doubt that such a system (made up of systems based on systems), came about with a measure of intelligence.

Perhaps so. Why is it that you don't think the intelligence that designed life is smart enough to use evolution to do it?

Perhaps so. Why is it that you don't think the intelligence that designed life is smart enough to use evolution to do it?

That is presupposing that evolution is the smarter option "to do it". Not sure if you realised that but thought I should point it out.

However the answer to your question here can be found in the post you are replying to. What we already know about Biochemistry already debunks the current claims about how evolution works.

A common example I like to use is cellular respiration.

This process contains 3 steps that are inter-dependant on each other to occur.

Glycolysis- Starts the process creating pyruvate for the citric acid cycle and some NADH for the electron transport chain.

Citric Acid Cycle- Utilises the pyruvate to create more NADH and FADH2 as well as CO2.

Elec. Transport Chain- Uses the NADH and FADH2 to produce the bulk of the energy from cellular respiration, as well as recycles NAD and FAD to be used.

If you don't have Glycolysis then there is no starting point

If you don't have the citric acid cycle then the pyruvate will build up to toxic levels and thus kill the cell.

If you don't have the electron transport chain then the bulk of the energy is not produced and NAD and FAD are not recycled meaning that the process completely stops once they are used up.

Now from this we can deduce that in order for cellular respiration to occur these three processes are required in their entirety on day one of the life of the first cell. Yet as Darwin admits in his book that if it can be concieved that something did not originate via small progressive changes then his theory absolutely breaks down.....

This is what cellular respiration demonstrates that the three systems are required to exist for the cell to live at all, hence it cannot have "evolved" one and then wait a few thousand years for the next installment, it is required at the start, which is precisely the thing Darwin said would debunk his ideas. This isn't even going into the fact that these systems themselves require multiple parts to function as well, hence its interconnected systems where each of those systems are based on a myriad of other interconnected systems, (check out the enzymes required for the citric acid cycle, its a pretty big list).

The really sad thing here is that I've mentioned this many times and people know this and are taught Biochemistry yet it just doesn't click. I had a lecture about the proteins that seek out and recycle the mis-formed proteins and that this process was extremely efficient... Yet considering this, if the cell is efficient at seeking out misformed proteins and degrading them then how can anything "evolve" via small changes? I asked my lecturer and she was a bit stunned, and claimed that she had never thought about it that way before.

Therefore from this we can logically claim that evolution cannot have been the process used by the designer since the process itself is incoherent with the biochemical reality we now realise. Perhaps 100 or so years ago it was easy to claim that things "evolved" when the cell was believed to be something simple, like a blob of jelly, yet as we are now finding out about the complexity of the cell for evolution to be logically coherent it must have a mechanism for this complexity, rather than the standard evo-response.... 'evolution did it'.

EDIT: I thought I'd be (kinda) kind to the evolutionist and give them a way to debunk this argument of mine. One way would be to find a precursor system that was used before cellular respiration.

Now a disclaimer, I consider this to be scientifically (and logically) impossible since there is no way to determine that there ever was a precursor system to the modern respiration system.

There are autotrophs, (chemotrophs, lithotrophs and phototrophs), which utilise hydrocarbons / minerals / light and whatnot to create glucose or organic molecules, however such is an entirely different system which would entail a huge amount of hoops of faith for the evolutionist to jump through.

Furthermore these processes themselves are exactly the same as cellular respiration as depicting inter-dependent systems which could never have evolved.... (There are literally thousands of examples of this, pretty much the entirety of Biochemistry defies evolutionary ideas).

That is presupposing that evolution is the smarter option "to do it". Not sure if you realised that but thought I should point it out.

I didn't say it was the smarter option. What I meant was that you appear to believe that the designer could not make it work despite the fact that you believe evolution to be impossible if left to run on its own.

However the answer to your question here can be found in the post you are replying to. What we already know about Biochemistry already debunks the current claims about how evolution works.

Since the findings of biochemistry debunk evolution, then most, if not all, PHD biochemists should be anti-evolutionists even if they didn't believe in creationism. Is that what you have found in your experience with your professors?

A common example I like to use is cellular respiration.

This process contains 3 steps that are inter-dependant on each other to occur.

Glycolysis does not require the other two parts in order to produce ATP from ADP. Yeast does it and produces ethanol and, eventually, buds out another yeast cell (reproduces). So, that is the starting point of the aerobic cellular respiration.

I had a lecture about the proteins that seek out and recycle the mis-formed proteins and that this process was extremely efficient... Yet considering this, if the cell is efficient at seeking out misformed proteins and degrading them then how can anything "evolve" via small changes? I asked my lecturer and she was a bit stunned, and claimed that she had never thought about it that way before.

I will have to look into this because I have never researched this feature of cells.

Therefore from this we can logically claim that evolution cannot have been the process used by the designer since the process itself is incoherent with the biochemical reality we now realise.

Strangely, your biochemistry professors haven't thrown out evolution based on their understanding of these complex cellular chemistry functions and I am sure they have a deeper understanding of those processes than you do.

EDIT: I thought I'd be (kinda) kind to the evolutionist and give them a way to debunk this argument of mine. One way would be to find a precursor system that was used before cellular respiration.

This subject matter is not my forte`. You are the one saying it is impossible. I don't find your support for it to be very convincing since I easily pointed out the anaerobic respiration does not require these interdependent processes to work together. I am sure a person with the learning that you have could provide a better rebuttal than I did.

1. I didn't say it was the smarter option. What I meant was that you appear to believe that the designer could not make it work despite the fact that you believe evolution to be impossible if left to run on its own.

2. Since the findings of biochemistry debunk evolution, then most, if not all, PHD biochemists should be anti-evolutionists even if they didn't believe in creationism. Is that what you have found in your experience with your professors?

3. Glycolysis does not require the other two parts in order to produce ATP from ADP.

3 a)Yeast does it and produces ethanol and, eventually, buds out another yeast cell (reproduces). So, that is the starting point of the aerobic cellular respiration.

4. I will have to look into this because I have never researched this feature of cells.

5. Strangely, your biochemistry professors haven't thrown out evolution based on their understanding of these complex cellular chemistry functions and I am sure they have a deeper understanding of those processes than you do.

6. This subject matter is not my forte`.

7. You are the one saying it is impossible.

8. I don't find your support for it to be very convincing since I easily pointed out the anaerobic respiration does not require these interdependent processes to work together. I am sure a person with the learning that you have could provide a better rebuttal than I did.

1. Actually when you state if something is "smart enough" for evolution then this implies that what is not evolution is not "smart enough" hence my claim here is justified by your own words. Perhaps this is merely a demonstration of consider what you write Since I am sure you didn't mean that context.

2. Nope this is not and it is scary. The answer to your claim can already be found to the post you replied to....

"The really sad thing here is that I've mentioned this many times and people know this and are taught Biochemistry yet it just doesn't click. I had a lecture about the proteins that seek out and recycle the mis-formed proteins and that this process was extremely efficient... Yet considering this, if the cell is efficient at seeking out misformed proteins and degrading them then how can anything "evolve" via small changes? I asked my lecturer and she was a bit stunned, and claimed that she had never thought about it that way before."

Essentially this is the epitome of the evolutionist philosophy... Drown out any and all arguments / differing worldviews so the only choice can be evolution, so the only thing people think about is evolution. Considering that SCIENCE is about finding the truth about the evidence, such conduct of quashing any and all differing views is inherently unscientific.

3. Did you read what I wrote?...... SInce you've taken my statement WAY out of context. Perhaps I should have wrote the word, "properly" at the end of the part you have quoted. Since this would reflect the rest of my post much better.

When you look at the BULK of what I said I never said that Glycolysis itself cannot occur I was getting at how without the three systems in place the cell dies EVERY TIME, with a build up of pyruvate from glycolysis.

This was convieniently cut out of your quote...

"If you don't have the citric acid cycle then the pyruvate will build up to toxic levels and thus kill the cell."

In fact since I mentioned a build up of pyruvate from glycolysis in my post then I am already assuming that glycolysis can and does occur without the other two systems... This demonstrates that you have been unable to read / comprehend what I have written directly after the statement you quoted. (Or perhaps this is merely cherry picking).

I suggest you actually read all of my post rather than cherry-picking one word I said and using that as a basis of an argument.... Is such a thing logical? Is such a thing scientific? I have used known scientific details to debunk evolution, and all you can do is take my words out of context....

3 a) I am glad you mentioned yeast You know that there is a reason why breweries / wineries cannot create 100% alcohol (ethanol) wine / beer.... Its because the concentration of the ethanol becomes so much as to kill the yeast producing it. This exemplefies my point in that over time the cell will die from its ability to respire since the products from the rerspiration are not dealt with by the other processes therefore become toxic and kill the cell.

Hence I should thank you for proving my point

4. Fair enough, I wait with baited breath... Since the only answer my lecturer gave me was this (paraphrased)

- there must have been a mutation in the recycler protein to allow some variations through- some variations went through attributing to evolution

However to state such a thing defies what we already know about how the protein works. Not more than 30 mins before this reply we were told that many diseases come about via the malfunction of the cell to recycle proteins.... Yet for evolution to occur at all she is advocating that this occured, therefore leading to a disease state, now consider this.... does being in a diseased state INCREASE the fitness of a cell? No... so at every turn evolution is debunked by what we know about the cell.

5. Argument to Authority anyone?.. You know this is a logical fallacy? Perhaps try and use evidence to debate this issue not logical fallacies. The fact that they haven't done anything about it can demonstrate a few things.

i) they do not know / realise (like my lecturer)ii) they do not careiii) they do not have an answer, so prefer to not worry the public about it

Consider that I have not gone to any great lengths to do anything, I have merely presented the absolute basics of Biochemistry and have shown how evolution cannot fit within its framework. If the mere basics doesn't fit then I don't have hopes for the more complicated things.

6. Yes I can tell, and I would encourage you to do your own research. When you do so you'd see that I am using the basic estabished information that are available to anyone. The only difference is that I am thinking about it outside of the standard evo-worldview.

7. Yes I am, and if you had considered the entirety of my post rather than cherry-pick one wrong word then you would see what I am talking about.

8. I have already pointed out that your "rebuttal" was merely cherry-picking my absense of the word "properly". I thank you for pointing that out, however now your "rebuttal" is laid to waste since there is no substance to it.

Additionally you never addressed the bulk of my post, (which contained the actual support for my claims), such is also cherry-picking.

I will repeat what you have failed to quote and address, in the hopes that you will read and perhaps address the actual claims I am making.

"Glycolysis- Starts the process creating pyruvate for the citric acid cycle and some NADH for the electron transport chain.

Citric Acid Cycle- Utilises the pyruvate to create more NADH and FADH2 as well as CO2.

Elec. Transport Chain- Uses the NADH and FADH2 to produce the bulk of the energy from cellular respiration, as well as recycles NAD and FAD to be used.

If you don't have Glycolysis then there is no starting point

If you don't have the citric acid cycle then the pyruvate will build up to toxic levels and thus kill the cell.

If you don't have the electron transport chain then the bulk of the energy is not produced and NAD and FAD are not recycled meaning that the process completely stops once they are used up.

Now from this we can deduce that in order for cellular respiration to occur these three processes are required in their entirety on day one of the life of the first cell. Yet as Darwin admits in his book that if it can be concieved that something did not originate via small progressive changes then his theory absolutely breaks down.....

This is what cellular respiration demonstrates that the three systems are required to exist for the cell to live at all, hence it cannot have "evolved" one and then wait a few thousand years for the next installment, it is required at the start, which is precisely the thing Darwin said would debunk his ideas. This isn't even going into the fact that these systems themselves require multiple parts to function as well, hence its interconnected systems where each of those systems are based on a myriad of other interconnected systems, (check out the enzymes required for the citric acid cycle, its a pretty big list)."

1. Actually when you state if something is "smart enough" for evolution then this implies that what is not evolution is not "smart enough" hence my claim here is justified by your own words. Perhaps this is merely a demonstration of consider what you write Since I am sure you didn't mean that context.

Perhaps. However, I have explained what I meant. To reiterate, it appears that you believe the designer did not do something because you believe it to be impossible.

2. Nope this is not and it is scary. The answer to your claim can already be found to the post you replied to....

"The really sad thing here is that I've mentioned this many times and people know this and are taught Biochemistry yet it just doesn't click. I had a lecture about the proteins that seek out and recycle the mis-formed proteins and that this process was extremely efficient... Yet considering this, if the cell is efficient at seeking out misformed proteins and degrading them then how can anything "evolve" via small changes? I asked my lecturer and she was a bit stunned, and claimed that she had never thought about it that way before."

Essentially this is the epitome of the evolutionist philosophy... Drown out any and all arguments / differing worldviews so the only choice can be evolution, so the only thing people think about is evolution. Considering that SCIENCE is about finding the truth about the evidence, such conduct of quashing any and all differing views is inherently unscientific.

You formed your opinion on the blindness of all PHD Biochemists based on the statement of one instructor. Even with my lesser level of knowledge concerning cellular biochemistry I can rebut that statement. First, "highly efficient" does not equal "perfect". So some changes do get through the process. Second, the human mutation rate is 100 - 200 mutations to the DNA per generation as per http://www.nature.co...s.2009.864.html.

3. Did you read what I wrote?...... SInce you've taken my statement WAY out of context. Perhaps I should have wrote the word, "properly" at the end of the part you have quoted. Since this would reflect the rest of my post much better.

When you look at the BULK of what I said I never said that Glycolysis itself cannot occur I was getting at how without the three systems in place the cell dies EVERY TIME, with a build up of pyruvate from glycolysis.

This was convieniently cut out of your quote...

"If you don't have the citric acid cycle then the pyruvate will build up to toxic levels and thus kill the cell."

In fact since I mentioned a build up of pyruvate from glycolysis in my post then I am already assuming that glycolysis can and does occur without the other two systems... This demonstrates that you have been unable to read / comprehend what I have written directly after the statement you quoted. (Or perhaps this is merely cherry picking).

I suggest you actually read all of my post rather than cherry-picking one word I said and using that as a basis of an argument.... Is such a thing logical? Is such a thing scientific? I have used known scientific details to debunk evolution, and all you can do is take my words out of context....

3 a) I am glad you mentioned yeast You know that there is a reason why breweries / wineries cannot create 100% alcohol (ethanol) wine / beer.... Its because the concentration of the ethanol becomes so much as to kill the yeast producing it. This exemplefies my point in that over time the cell will die from its ability to respire since the products from the rerspiration are not dealt with by the other processes therefore become toxic and kill the cell.

Hence I should thank you for proving my point

I did not "cherry pick". I did not include your whole quote because I thought you and any other reader could go back and read it if they did not understand my replies to you. If you wish, I can include your entire message but it seems to be rather ponderous.Breweries purposely limit the volume of the "environment" that the yeast work in, which allows the alcohol content to build up. It is the purpose for having the yeast after all. You seem to be saying that anaerobic cellular respiration does not occur in the wild. That would be a surprise to these guys: http://www.livestron...-bacteria-list/. Those bacteria seem to live and thrive on the glycolysis portion of cellular respiration all by itself.

4. Fair enough, I wait with baited breath... Since the only answer my lecturer gave me was this (paraphrased)

- there must have been a mutation in the recycler protein to allow some variations through- some variations went through attributing to evolution

However to state such a thing defies what we already know about how the protein works. Not more than 30 mins before this reply we were told that many diseases come about via the malfunction of the cell to recycle proteins.... Yet for evolution to occur at all she is advocating that this occured, therefore leading to a disease state, now consider this.... does being in a diseased state INCREASE the fitness of a cell? No... so at every turn evolution is debunked by what we know about the cell.

Yet mutations do occur every generation in every person and they are not all deletereous otherwise we would not continue as a species. You are assuming that every change in the proteins of a cell would cause disease. Obviously some changes are happening in the human population (other species have documented mutation rates also) despite your contention that it could not happen without decreasing fitness.

5. Argument to Authority anyone?.. You know this is a logical fallacy? Perhaps try and use evidence to debate this issue not logical fallacies. The fact that they haven't done anything about it can demonstrate a few things.

i) they do not know / realise (like my lecturer)ii) they do not careiii) they do not have an answer, so prefer to not worry the public about it

Consider that I have not gone to any great lengths to do anything, I have merely presented the absolute basics of Biochemistry and have shown how evolution cannot fit within its framework. If the mere basics doesn't fit then I don't have hopes for the more complicated things.6. Yes I can tell, and I would encourage you to do your own research. When you do so you'd see that I am using the basic estabished information that are available to anyone. The only difference is that I am thinking about it outside of the standard evo-worldview.

You say the basics of biochemistry refute evolution and then assume the people in the best position to evaluate this obvious inconsistency in the theory are just not interested in the Nobel Prize or are so much less able to evaluate it than you that they are basically blithering idiots. I understand that Dr Michael Behe, a PHD biochemist, did claim that irreducibly complex systems could not evolve. I don't believe he has been awarded the $1,000,000 prize for some reason. Perhaps, it is because he was unaware of the cellular respiration conundrum. Maybe you should point it out to him.

7. Yes I am, and if you had considered the entirety of my post rather than cherry-pick one wrong word then you would see what I am talking about.

8. I have already pointed out that your "rebuttal" was merely cherry-picking my absense of the word "properly". I thank you for pointing that out, however now your "rebuttal" is laid to waste since there is no substance to it.

Additionally you never addressed the bulk of my post, (which contained the actual support for my claims), such is also cherry-picking.

The cherry-picking accusation has already been addressed by me.Also, did I point out anaerobic bacteria thriving in the wild?

1. You formed your opinion on the blindness of all PHD Biochemists based on the statement of one instructor. E

2. ven with my lesser level of knowledge concerning cellular biochemistry I can rebut that statement. First, "highly efficient" does not equal "perfect". So some changes do get through the process. Second, the human mutation rate is 100 - 200 mutations to the DNA per generation as per http://www.nature.co...s.2009.864.html.

3. I did not "cherry pick". I did not include your whole quote because I thought you and any other reader could go back and read it if they did not understand my replies to you.

4. If you wish, I can include your entire message but it seems to be rather ponderous.

5. Breweries purposely limit the volume of the "environment" that the yeast work in, which allows the alcohol content to build up. It is the purpose for having the yeast after all.

6. You seem to be saying that anaerobic cellular respiration does not occur in the wild.

8. Yet mutations do occur every generation in every person and they are not all deletereous otherwise we would not continue as a species. You are assuming that every change in the proteins of a cell would cause disease. Obviously some changes are happening in the human population (other species have documented mutation rates also) despite your contention that it could not happen without decreasing fitness.

9. You say the basics of biochemistry refute evolution and then assume the people in the best position to evaluate this obvious inconsistency in the theory are just not interested in the Nobel Prize or are so much less able to evaluate it than you that they are basically blithering idiots. I understand that Dr Michael Behe, a PHD biochemist, did claim that irreducibly complex systems could not evolve. I don't believe he has been awarded the $1,000,000 prize for some reason. Perhaps, it is because he was unaware of the cellular respiration conundrum. Maybe you should point it out to him.

10. The cherry-picking accusation has already been addressed by me.

11. Also, did I point out anaerobic bacteria thriving in the wild?

1. Really? Did I? That is very assertive of you, or perhaps you're putting your own preconceptions into the fore.... I suggest you have a read of the book "Darwins Black Box".

2. Huh? That has nothing to do with what I wrote. Here I will try and state it again.

If evolution is caused via small changes. Small changes in the DNA leading to small changes in the structure of the protein, of which would cause changes to the function of said protein, (since a protein's function is based on its function)... Yet when there is a system in each cell that detects the slightest structural change in any protein and marks it for degredation then there is no way to concieve that evolution via small changes can occur, since any small structural change will ensure that that changed protein will be degraded rather than exert its new function.

3. Considering that the rest of the post automatically debunked your reply then it seems a bit obvious why you chose to not include it, (since it shows you didn't read what I wrote initially).

4. Yes I do wish that, its about full accountability. See, everything I am responding to is quoted to in its entirety.

5. Really... How does that have anything to do with what I said? I said that there was a limit to the amount af ethanol the cell can produce, since in high concentrations it is toxic to the cell. This is the same with excess pyruvate, in higher concentrations it is toxic to the cell, that is my point. If the cell doesn't have a way to deal with the constant production of pyruvate it will die, no ifs, no buts, the cell will die.

6. Really, well normally when you accuse someone of saying something you normally display it in a quote. So I'd like you to demonstrate where I made that claim.

7. Certainly they can live without the citric acid cycle, however they have a different means of dealing with the build up of pyruvate / ethanol / etc... for example gluconeogenesis.. which we can insert into the place of the citric acid cycle... Yet incorporating these methods have exactly the same situation as being interconnected systems. Therefore the problem is still there. We have an interconnected system where you have multiple systems relying on each other for the cell to survive. It is like what I said before

"There are autotrophs, (chemotrophs, lithotrophs and phototrophs), which utilise hydrocarbons / minerals / light and whatnot to create glucose or organic molecules, however such is an entirely different system which would entail a huge amount of hoops of faith for the evolutionist to jump through.

Furthermore these processes themselves are exactly the same as cellular respiration as depicting inter-dependent systems which could never have evolved.... (There are literally thousands of examples of this, pretty much the entirety of Biochemistry defies evolutionary ideas). "

Therefore the problem is still the same, you've merely given me a another example to cite.

8. Shakes head... When did I say that every change will incite disease? Again, if you intend to claim something, please do so in a quote. The recycling protein system is set up for the destruction of mal-formed proteins that are not in their native (correct) form, as I already said the lecturer mentioned that there are many diseases that arise from this system not perfoming properly. Yet her claim that perhaps the system allowed some changes through, (thus meaning that it is now not working properly), this would mean that these diseases would also have the opportunity to arise as well as the claimed evolutionary changes... Yet considering the nature of mutation there is a higher chance of getting deleterious mutations than advantageous ones, which leads me to the decrease in fitness.... Understand now?

9. The example of Behe is exactly why no-one wants to look past their evo-preconceptions. They will be mocked. Why do you claim that the Nobel prize is up for grabs? Are you on the selecting committee? Anything that is mentioned against evolution is mocked despite how logical it may be, honestly that is blind faith right there buddy... Perhaps consider when soft tissue was found inside dinosaur bones. This debunks the "millions of years" age of these fossils since proteins and DNA cannot exist that long (as shown via experimentation). Yet rather than embracing this new data, and "giving the discoverer the Nobel prize", it was mocked and attempts were made to claim it was bacterial slime.... which was found to be a bunk (probably knee-jerk) claim. The proof is in the pudding, actions speak louder than words after all.

10. Not really.

11. You did but failed to realise that it is yet another example of interconnected systems, thus strengthening my argument... Thanks

8. Shakes head... When did I say that every change will incite disease? Again, if you intend to claim something, please do so in a quote. The recycling protein system is set up for the destruction of mal-formed proteins that are not in their native (correct) form, as I already said the lecturer mentioned that there are many diseases that arise from this system not perfoming properly. Yet her claim that perhaps the system allowed some changes through, (thus meaning that it is now not working properly), this would mean that these diseases would also have the opportunity to arise as well as the claimed evolutionary changes... Yet considering the nature of mutation there is a higher chance of getting deleterious mutations than advantageous ones, which leads me to the decrease in fitness.... Understand now?

The million dollar question: How could a step-by-step recombining of chemicals lead up to primordial life with such a vita and highly efficient error-checking function? If the first cell did not have this, then life would certainly have gone extinct within a few generations at the very most! Do you believe in miracles?

Here is the irreducible complexity argument in full, basic needs of biological life:

* its need to separate itself from its outside environment* its need for communication between its subsystems* its need to produce hundreds of intricate compounds* its need to repair damaged components* its need to selectively admit raw materials from outside* its need to expel waste, and paramount,* its need to reliably reproduce itself.

...Huh? That has nothing to do with what I wrote. Here I will try and state it again....

...Really... How does that have anything to do with what I said?...... So I'd like you to demonstrate where I made that claim........When did I say that every change will incite disease? Again, if you intend to claim something, please do so in a quote.....

I did not quote your entire reply because I am addressing an obvious problem. I believed I was replying to the intent of your message but you say that I am not. Perhaps I need to start over.

This is from your post (message 28)

That is presupposing that evolution is the smarter option "to do it". Not sure if you realised that but thought I should point it out.

However the answer to your question here can be found in the post you are replying to. What we already know about Biochemistry already debunks the current claims about how evolution works.

A common example I like to use is cellular respiration.

This process contains 3 steps that are inter-dependant on each other to occur.

Glycolysis- Starts the process creating pyruvate for the citric acid cycle and some NADH for the electron transport chain.

Citric Acid Cycle- Utilises the pyruvate to create more NADH and FADH2 as well as CO2.

Elec. Transport Chain- Uses the NADH and FADH2 to produce the bulk of the energy from cellular respiration, as well as recycles NAD and FAD to be used.

If you don't have Glycolysis then there is no starting point

If you don't have the citric acid cycle then the pyruvate will build up to toxic levels and thus kill the cell.

If you don't have the electron transport chain then the bulk of the energy is not produced and NAD and FAD are not recycled meaning that the process completely stops once they are used up.

Now from this we can deduce that in order for cellular respiration to occur these three processes are required in their entirety on day one of the life of the first cell. Yet as Darwin admits in his book that if it can be concieved that something did not originate via small progressive changes then his theory absolutely breaks down.....

This is what cellular respiration demonstrates that the three systems are required to exist for the cell to live at all, hence it cannot have "evolved" one and then wait a few thousand years for the next installment, it is required at the start, which is precisely the thing Darwin said would debunk his ideas.

You say that all three systems are required for a cell to "live at all" and the "three processes are required in their entirety on day one of life". I assume you meant the life of that cell, not Life in general. If I am misunderstanding your meaning I welcome your correction. However, some bacteria don't use all three processes and continue to live and reproduce. This fact seems to contradict your statement that any one process can stand alone and have the cell survive.

This isn't even going into the fact that these systems themselves require multiple parts to function as well, hence its interconnected systems where each of those systems are based on a myriad of other interconnected systems, (check out the enzymes required for the citric acid cycle, its a pretty big list).

Not replying to this...just including it because you wanted me to.

The really sad thing here is that I've mentioned this many times and people know this and are taught Biochemistry yet it just doesn't click. I had a lecture about the proteins that seek out and recycle the mis-formed proteins and that this process was extremely efficient... Yet considering this, if the cell is efficient at seeking out misformed proteins and degrading them then how can anything "evolve" via small changes? I asked my lecturer and she was a bit stunned, and claimed that she had never thought about it that way before.

Since I don't know the qualifications of the lecturer, I cannot make any claims about her understanding of the subject matter. Have you asked any of the PHD biochemists or microbiologists at your university? The only reply I have is that the process is not perfect, therefore misformed proteins could possibly get through. The fact that each individual animal has mutations in its DNA that cannot be accounted for in the mixing of the genes of its parents, shows that the process you describe allows changes to occur.If, for instance, extra copies of portions of the DNA string were added to the DNA of a cell when it divided, the proteins built from that string could be misformed and not have an effect on the functioning of the cell because the original portion of that string would be already producing those needed proteins.

Therefore from this we can logically claim that evolution cannot have been the process used by the designer since the process itself is incoherent with the biochemical reality we now realise. Perhaps 100 or so years ago it was easy to claim that things "evolved" when the cell was believed to be something simple, like a blob of jelly, yet as we are now finding out about the complexity of the cell for evolution to be logically coherent it must have a mechanism for this complexity, rather than the standard evo-response.... 'evolution did it'.

We know that the "biochemical reality" allows changes in the proteins and DNA to occur. That is an observed reality. If changes are allowed by the biochemical system, what prevents living populations from evolving.

EDIT: I thought I'd be (kinda) kind to the evolutionist and give them a way to debunk this argument of mine. One way would be to find a precursor system that was used before cellular respiration.

Now a disclaimer, I consider this to be scientifically (and logically) impossible since there is no way to determine that there ever was a precursor system to the modern respiration system.

There are autotrophs, (chemotrophs, lithotrophs and phototrophs), which utilise hydrocarbons / minerals / light and whatnot to create glucose or organic molecules, however such is an entirely different system which would entail a huge amount of hoops of faith for the evolutionist to jump through.

Furthermore these processes themselves are exactly the same as cellular respiration as depicting inter-dependent systems which could never have evolved.... (There are literally thousands of examples of this, pretty much the entirety of Biochemistry defies evolutionary ideas).

Different autotrophs utilize different cellular respiration processes, aerobic or anaerobic. So, I don't see how your mentioning them addresses the problem that anaerobic respiration poses to your claim that cells cannot live without all three processes operating together. You have stated in another message that anaerobic respiration requires its own interdependent system of processes. However, interdependence of processes in one case, aerobic cellular respiration, does not seem to rule out the possibility of it evolving since Glycolysis can operate without the other two processes.I admit that I am not a biochemistry student or scientist, so I may be off base here. I am interpreting your example to mean that you logically conclude that evolution cannot develop interdependence in biological processes. This is a logical leap that goes beyond my ability to understand. Could you break down your thought processes into smaller steps so I can see how you came to this conclusion?

Here is the irreducible complexity argument in full, basic needs of biological life:

Quote

* its need to separate itself from its outside environment* its need for communication between its subsystems* its need to produce hundreds of intricate compounds* its need to repair damaged components* its need to selectively admit raw materials from outside* its need to expel waste, and paramount,* its need to reliably reproduce itself.

You cannot simplify this. All of these needs had to be met with the first living cell for it to have survived at all. If you don't agree, tell me which one you think doesn't need to be there and why?

Even if I did agree that all of these needs are required in exactly the way you interpret the meaning of each, evolution from that first living cell to the complexity of life we see on Earth today could still occur.

I understand that the choice of wording was necessary to provide a general understanding but they can be interpreted differently by different people. For instance "separate itself from the outside environment" is contradicted by the two that require bringing in raw materials and expelling waste unless "separate" is defined in a certain way.

The need for "hundreds of intricate compounds" implies that the minimum number of compounds needed to define the first life is actually known in a general way. I am not sure that this is true...it could be only 10 compounds need to be produced. Do we have a definition of the minimum number of chemical reactions required for the first cell?

What does "reliably reproduce itself" mean to you? Does it mean that exact copies must be made or that the offspring have to be viable enough to produce offspring of their own and don't have to be exact reproductions of the parent lifeform (cell)? That word, reliably, allows for evolution in my interpretation.

Even if I did agree that all of these needs are required in exactly the way you interpret the meaning of each, evolution from that first living cell to the complexity of life we see on Earth today could still occur.

Jonas, I get the impression that you think that every debatable matter can be determined simply by consulting "PHD biochemists and microbiologists" and sweeping everything else off the table by calling them "interpretations".

If that's what you think then what on earth are you doing here and what is left to debate?

Given your "interpretation", how does a cell not only develop the ability to recognize damage, which is totally incredible in itself, but also know what to do to repair it?

Start off as simply as you want.

Just tell me how a cell could possibly "recognize" anything, because I can't imagine how repair would be possible otherwise.

1. You say that all three systems are required for a cell to "live at all" and the "three processes are required in their entirety on day one of life". I assume you meant the life of that cell, not Life in general. If I am misunderstanding your meaning I welcome your correction. However, some bacteria don't use all three processes and continue to live and reproduce. This fact seems to contradict your statement that any one process can stand alone and have the cell survive.

2. Not replying to this...just including it because you wanted me to.

3. Since I don't know the qualifications of the lecturer, I cannot make any claims about her understanding of the subject matter.

4. Have you asked any of the PHD biochemists or microbiologists at your university?

5. The only reply I have is that the process is not perfect, therefore misformed proteins could possibly get through. The fact that each individual animal has mutations in its DNA that cannot be accounted for in the mixing of the genes of its parents, shows that the process you describe allows changes to occur.If, for instance, extra copies of portions of the DNA string were added to the DNA of a cell when it divided, the proteins built from that string could be misformed and not have an effect on the functioning of the cell because the original portion of that string would be already producing those needed proteins.

6. We know that the "biochemical reality" allows changes in the proteins and DNA to occur. That is an observed reality. If changes are allowed by the biochemical system, what prevents living populations from evolving.

8. So, I don't see how your mentioning them addresses the problem that anaerobic respiration poses to your claim that cells cannot live without all three processes operating together.

9. You have stated in another message that anaerobic respiration requires its own interdependent system of processes.

10. However, interdependence of processes in one case, aerobic cellular respiration, does not seem to rule out the possibility of it evolving since Glycolysis can operate without the other two processes.

11. I admit that I am not a biochemistry student or scientist, so I may be off base here.

12. I am interpreting your example to mean that you logically conclude that evolution cannot develop interdependence in biological processes. This is a logical leap that goes beyond my ability to understand. Could you break down your thought processes into smaller steps so I can see how you came to this conclusion?

1. I am saying that for cellular respiration to work you do indeed require all the systems in place on day one, (actually on second one of day one).

If you wish to discuss a different example, such as anaerobic respiration then we can do that. As I said cellular respiration was merely an example.

You seem to think that because some bacteria can live anaerobically that somehow debunks my point.... Here is your flawed logic

Gilbo says all parts of aerobic cellular respiration are required for it to operate properlyJonas says that some cells can operate anaerobicallyTherefore (in Jonas' eyes)Aerobic cellular respiration doesn't need all its parts because some cells operate anaerobically...

Do you see how your point doesn't address the issue?

2. You probably should try since that is complexity within complexity within complexity which makes the evolutionists job harder 100 fold.

3. She is a Biochemist, only Phd's can get jobs at universities, (and there are many people with Phds so only the best are chosen).

4. Um yeah I did.... My lecturer......

5. Then how could such a thing be selected for since it makes the cell worse off via detrimental mutations that are allowed to occur. As I have already shown you, either way evolution fails.

6. Yes things do change however the creationist would claim that they only variate within what the cell has been programed to allow, ie- variation within the same species, ie- different hair colour etc. Additionally there is no way you can empirically support the claim that change is proof of evolution.

Merely stating that change is evidence of evolution is a very silly argument since it has no foundation in evidence, rather it is merely your opinion, (which you are entitled to, just don't claim its a point to argue on).

7. Yes they do, as I have mentioned right at the start....

8. I already dealt with this "problem" of yours, here in this reply and in post #32

"Certainly they can live without the citric acid cycle, however they have a different means of dealing with the build up of pyruvate / ethanol / etc... for example gluconeogenesis.. which we can insert into the place of the citric acid cycle... Yet incorporating these methods have exactly the same situation as being interconnected systems. Therefore the problem is still there. We have an interconnected system where you have multiple systems relying on each other for the cell to survive. It is like what I said before.

There are autotrophs, (chemotrophs, lithotrophs and phototrophs), which utilise hydrocarbons / minerals / light and whatnot to create glucose or organic molecules, however such is an entirely different system which would entail a huge amount of hoops of faith for the evolutionist to jump through.

Furthermore these processes themselves are exactly the same as cellular respiration as depicting inter-dependent systems which could never have evolved.... (There are literally thousands of examples of this, pretty much the entirety of Biochemistry defies evolutionary ideas). "

And

"You did but failed to realise that it is yet another example of interconnected systems, thus strengthening my argument... Thanks "

Perhaps I should be more direct.

Anaerobic bacteria require a different interconnected system of systems... Hence it has the same problem described of aerobic respiration, therefore all you have done here is merely given me a different example to use.

9. So you were listening

10. Oops perhaps not...

Post #28"If you don't have Glycolysis then there is no starting point

If you don't have the citric acid cycle then the pyruvate will build up to toxic levels and thus kill the cell.

If you don't have the electron transport chain then the bulk of the energy is not produced and NAD and FAD are not recycled meaning that the process completely stops once they are used up."

Post #30"When you look at the BULK of what I said I never said that Glycolysis itself cannot occur I was getting at how without the three systems in place the cell dies EVERY TIME, with a build up of pyruvate from glycolysis.

This was convieniently cut out of your quote...

"If you don't have the citric acid cycle then the pyruvate will build up to toxic levels and thus kill the cell."

Post #32

" Certainly they can live without the citric acid cycle, however they have a different means of dealing with the build up of pyruvate / ethanol / etc... for example gluconeogenesis.. which we can insert into the place of the citric acid cycle... Yet incorporating these methods have exactly the same situation as being interconnected systems. Therefore the problem is still there. We have an interconnected system where you have multiple systems relying on each other for the cell to survive. It is like what I said before"

11. Humility ranks high in my books

12. Not a problem, thanks for asking nicely.

Ok, well it starts with Darwins own admission that if something can be concieved to not have come about via small changes over time then his theory would absolutely break down.

Post # 28

"Now from this we can deduce that in order for cellular respiration to occur these three processes are required in their entirety on day one of the life of the first cell. Yet as Darwin admits in his book that if it can be concieved that something did not originate via small progressive changes then his theory absolutely breaks down.....

This is what cellular respiration demonstrates that the three systems are required to exist for the cell to live at all, hence it cannot have "evolved" one and then wait a few thousand years for the next installment, it is required at the start, which is precisely the thing Darwin said would debunk his ideas. This isn't even going into the fact that these systems themselves require multiple parts to function as well, hence its interconnected systems where each of those systems are based on a myriad of other interconnected systems, (check out the enzymes required for the citric acid cycle, its a pretty big list).

The really sad thing here is that I've mentioned this many times and people know this and are taught Biochemistry yet it just doesn't click. I had a lecture about the proteins that seek out and recycle the mis-formed proteins and that this process was extremely efficient... Yet considering this, if the cell is efficient at seeking out misformed proteins and degrading them then how can anything "evolve" via small changes? I asked my lecturer and she was a bit stunned, and claimed that she had never thought about it that way before.

Therefore from this we can logically claim that evolution cannot have been the process used by the designer since the process itself is incoherent with the biochemical reality we now realise. Perhaps 100 or so years ago it was easy to claim that things "evolved" when the cell was believed to be something simple, like a blob of jelly, yet as we are now finding out about the complexity of the cell for evolution to be logically coherent it must have a mechanism for this complexity, rather than the standard evo-response.... 'evolution did it'."

The reason why is that if you had a cell with only one part, when all three are required then the cell will die and there is no life. Therefore in order for the cell to survive all three parts are required which couldn't have come about via small changes, (since by that time the cells are dead)... Perhaps think about it like this, Gilbo is sick and needs some medicine in order for him to survive, however he has to wait 10,000 years for it, do you think he would survive that long in order to get the medicine to cure his sickness? Or perhaps think of it as a piece of a three part puzzle, but you need the full puzzle in order to live. You need all three pieces together yet they are given out over time... Yet you need all three to live in the first place, so you cannot wait.

Now lets look at this deeper, each of these systems require a multitude of enzymes and regulatory proteins which are also interconnected, so the same problem occurs here to, (hence it escalates). Perhaps consider this as a factory line, where each enzyme is a different machine doing a different task. If you don't get the proper product you die, hence if you are missing any part of the process then there are dire consequences. The reason why the cell would die is because a protein's function is based on its structural formation, even the slightest change in the amino acid chains used (the primary structure) can potentially cause huge changes to the secondary and tertiary structure of the protein, (this would depend if the change was with a structurally important amino acid).

Now expand this out and consider all the different functions a cell would need to do in order to live. DNA reading, DNA correction as Uppsala has mentioned, DNA replication, cellular respiration, organelle replication, organelle repair, cellular replication, vesicle transport for a myriad of molecules, cell structure (cytoskeleton), cell membrane repair, protein formation, protein recycling, metabolite production, metabolite breakdown, regulatory processes, signal cascade systems, transporter proteins in the membrane (active and passive), lipid / carbohydrate breakdown, amino acid recycling, etc etc etc. All these things are required for a cell to survive its first day of life.

Even if I did agree that all of these needs are required in exactly the way you interpret the meaning of each, evolution from that first living cell to the complexity of life we see on Earth today could still occur.

I understand that the choice of wording was necessary to provide a general understanding but they can be interpreted differently by different people. For instance "separate itself from the outside environment" is contradicted by the two that require bringing in raw materials and expelling waste unless "separate" is defined in a certain way.

The need for "hundreds of intricate compounds" implies that the minimum number of compounds needed to define the first life is actually known in a general way. I am not sure that this is true...it could be only 10 compounds need to be produced. Do we have a definition of the minimum number of chemical reactions required for the first cell?

What does "reliably reproduce itself" mean to you? Does it mean that exact copies must be made or that the offspring have to be viable enough to produce offspring of their own and don't have to be exact reproductions of the parent lifeform (cell)? That word, reliably, allows for evolution in my interpretation.

Separate itself from the environment is essential for anything to be life. Its in reference to the cellular membrane. If there is no cellular membrane then there can be no capture or storage of nutrients for the cell, nor can the cell do anything since its parts will be away from each other, additionally oxygen will oxidise DNA and the functional proteins needed for life.

Bringing in nutrients and expelling waste is also essential. Nutrients for obvious reasons, and waste is as I have said before about pyruvate, its a waste product (but also a substrate for another process) and will be toxic and kill the cell at high concentrations... its the same with almost every chemical, there is always a tolerance limit, beyond that it becomes toxic.

Therefore there is no contradiction.

The minimum number of proteins required for a fully functional cell is much much much more than 10, perhaps consider the citric acid cycle which it alone requires 11 different enzymes..... (Not counting the proteins required to regulate these enzymes, so perhaps double or triple that number)

Cellular replication means a faithful replication is made, one of my other lecturers kept on stressing that point, that the cell has many systems in place that ensure that the DNA it has is kept in tip-top condition, it has a spell checker, as well as an auditing system which double checks everything. It also has its own "handyman" protein, (resembling an octopus), which "realises" DNA damage, transports to the break, assesses the break, determines what is wrong, gets the tools it needs, gets the material it needs and then fixes it. Therefore when a cell replicates it is "a faithful copy" of its parent cell.

Jonas, I get the impression that you think that every debatable matter can be determined simply by consulting "PHD biochemists and microbiologists" and sweeping everything else off the table by calling them "interpretations".

If that's what you think then what on earth are you doing here and what is left to debate?

Given your "interpretation", how does a cell not only develop the ability to recognize damage, which is totally incredible in itself, but also know what to do to repair it?

Start off as simply as you want.

Just tell me how a cell could possibly "recognize" anything, because I can't imagine how repair would be possible otherwise.

I am an electrical engineer. If you easily became tired, and had sores on your skin that do not heal for months, would you come to me for a diagnosis or to a medical professional? Tthe medical professional is trained in the problems you are experiencing whereas I am not. I pointed out the PHD's biochemists as a source because I thought their input on the biochemical roadblock to evolution might be relevant since they are highly trained in biochemistry. What is left to debate is why interdependent biological systems cannot be built by the process of mutation and selection.

I did not see that one of the requirements was that the biological life recognize damage. If "repair" is simply stopping the loss of cytoplasm, for instance, then recognition of damage may not be required. It is not on the list. Besides that, I am not a biochemist or microbiologist. I have not been trained in those fields. I don't know enough about those fields to conjecture as to how recognition of damage could have developed. I never claimed that I did. Given your interpretation, what prevents it from being developed?